Five REPUBLICAN-APPOINTED Supreme Court justices voted with 2 Democratic appointees to overturn a death sentence.

I want to make some remarks to show why this case is instructive in our political and social debates.

The case is DECK v. MISSOURI (04-5293.). Web-accessible at:
Deck v. Missouri. Argued March 1, 2005-Decided May 23, 2005. BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., and STEVENS, O’CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SCALIA, J., joined.

Down below, in the blockquote section, I have an excerpt that should introduce you to the Court’s reasoning.

Now let’s discuss whether these seven Justices are treasonous and trying to destroy America.

If you listen to the know-nothing spinwits on radio and TV, you’d be inclined to feel that these Justices just want to release murderers to terrorize us, because the Justices are part of a liberal plot to destroy our culture and security.

In the excerpt below, you will see what the reasoning of the Court was. In a nutshell, here is the case: A man was convicted of murder, and had to have a “penalty trial” to determine whether he would live or die. At the penalty trial, the convicted murderer was presented in court kept visibly shackled.

Historically, even back in the good old days, courts have concluded that prisoners are NOT to be visibly shackled during a trial, that visible shackles unfairly prejudice the jury against the prisoner. Prisoners can be shackled, but the shackling must be discreet. For example, the prisoner can be shackled from his feet or waist to a set of floor rings that are out of the view of the jury (obstructed by the defense table).

The government needs a very strong justification before fairness will permit a prisoner to be visibly shackled during his trial.

The Supreme Court of Missouri concluded that the visible shackling in this case was justified.

The United States Supreme Court (USSC) took the appeal and reversed. Five Republican appointees and 2 Democratic appointees agreed that the shackling in this case was NOT justified.

When you read the excerpt below and click the link to read the Court’s decision, you will have a full and complete understanding of the Court’s rationale.

These are not bleeding heart liberals looking to free prisoners. These are extremely smart judges looking very closely at the history of visible shackling, and reviewing the decisions of prior courts, and concluding that the shackling in this case was unjustified, and therefore may have created unfair prejudice against the defendant.

The Court erred on the side of life, and reversed the death penalty in this case. This was a pro-life decision.

The State cannot make a more important decision than whether to kill a person, and we should get it right and do it fairly. Reasonable minds can differ on whether a particular event is so unfair as to require reversal of a death sentence.

Where there is good faith doubt about whether the trial was fair, the sentence should probably be reversed, because we aren’t really THAT bloodthirsty (or are we?).

Deck v. Missouri - USSC.

Petitioner Deck was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to
death, but the Missouri Supreme Court set aside the sentence. At his
new sentencing proceeding, he was shackled with leg irons, hand-
cuffs, and a belly chain. The trial court overruled counsel’s objections
to the shackles, and Deck was again sentenced to death. Affirming,
the State Supreme Court rejected Deck’s claim that his shackling vio-
lated, inter alia, the Federal Constitution.

Held: The Constitution forbids the use of visible shackles during a capi-
tal trial’s penalty phase, as it does during the guilt phase, unless that
use is “justified by an essential state interest”-such as courtroom se-
curity-specific to the defendant on trial. Holbrook v. Flynn, 475
U. S. 560, 568-569. Pp. 3-10.

(a) The law has long forbidden routine use of visible shackles dur-
ing a capital trial’s guilt phase, permitting shackling only in the
presence of a special need. In light of Holbrook, Illinois v. Allen, 397
U. S. 337, early English cases, and lower court shackling doctrine
dating back to the 19th century, it is now clear that this is a basic
element of due process protected by the Federal Constitution. Thus,
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit using physical re-
straints visible to the jury absent a trial court determination, in the
exercise of its discretion, that restraints are justified by a state inter-
est specific to the particular defendant on trial. Pp. 3-6.